@yallapapi, No, bid botting is not the same as an advertisement. We've been through this before. Bit botting is more subtle and deceptive. You know when you are watching a fucking commercial.
Everyone eventually figures out that most exposure on here is purchased. Do you want a disclaimer or something? I don't see how that changes anything. I have no problem doing that, personally. In fact I've been very open about that since the beginning and am pretty sure I mention it at least once in every one of my posts. I encourage people to look at my wallet history and one user even analyzed all the upvotes I purchased and the profit/loss from them.
As for knowing when you're watching a commercial, it's not always so obvious. Steemit aside, there is a thing called grassroots/guerilla marketing, commonly referred to as shilling. It's extremely effective because people don't realize it's happening. For example, consider the difference between these two comments:
- OMG you guys have to check out the SharkSchool Discord chat! It's an amazing group run by the incredibly handsome an talented @yallapapi. Definitely go join the chat, you won't be sorry!
- Hey guys. Has anyone actually joined the #sharkschool Discord? I skimmed one of @yallapapi's posts and saw he has a chat group but I don't know if I should join. Anyone know anything about that?
Which one of these do you think is a more effective form of promotion? The second one, obviously, because it doesn't look like an ad. Yet it still refers to the product/service that is being advertised.
There is not so much of that on the Trending page (other than this post, ironically).
I thougt we have been through this before with you discussion with him. Why do you continue to exume the same dead talking points.
Not sure which specific conversation you're referring to. And besides, I feel I can take a decent chunk of the credit for this recent "outrage" at the State Of The Trending Page. So ironic.
You are just another devious marketer that hopes to exploit people's psychology while offering little value.
Devious marketer? Thanks. I take that as a compliment.
Do you know why? Because that is exactly the message I am trying to send to everyone on literally every single one of my interactions on here. I want people to know that I am an expert in "exploiting people's psychology" as you put it. Just like someone exploited your psychology by getting you to use this website. Just like your girlfriend exploited your psychology into marrying her. And just like your kids exploit your psychology into buying them shit they don't need.
We're all marketers, brother. Just some of us accept it and some don't.
As far as offering little value, gonna have to disagree with you there as well. The amount of value that I offer people on this site in exchange for what I ask from them is massive. In fact, I don't really even ask for anything other than upvotes and resteems which is standard fare for this place. As of two weeks ago I now have an email list and a Discord chat that I offer people the chance to join. I don't see that as particularly sinister and find it hard to understand why people on here are start foaming at the mouth when anyone tries to advertise their brand.
Please, stop trying to take advantage of people. I would be glad to support you if you stop using a methodology based on hype (smoke and mirrors).
How exactly am I taking advantage of people? Am I starting a "downvote crusade" and creating software that automatically downvotes the Top 30 posts that use paid upvotes? Am I forming a group of high value SP accounts to impose my will on Steemit? Have I ever been anything other than 100% up front about why I am here and what I am looking to gain from contributing to this platform?
Nope, nope and nope. I think you should re-evaluate who exactly is manipulating whom on here.
Once you sharks are done with your feeding frenzy and all the reasonable folks unwlling to drink the bot Kool aid have a exited en masse, the only ones you will be able to eat is each other.
You think the downvoting is bad now. Just wait. It's going to get worse. Shark school ain't going to be worth a damn in an empty ocean. Better milk that tit while you can. The chickens will come home to roost. The most valueble resource you have is people specifically they that create engaging content. Once you bot apologists lose enough of these, y'all are going to be left with your dicks in your hands in a circle jerk of diminishing returns.
In the meantime..
Being an ethical security professional with some know how, I'll even set up a few abuse / spam fighting utilities for y'all to use when I depart. That may extend the time a bit but the spiral will continue downward unless an alternative to bots and delegation schemes is found.
Good luck with your marketing.
LOL brother you are literally insane. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. What planet do you live on? Is it a place where money doesn't exist and people all farm the land together when they're not doing a drum circle?
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from ADDING TO the system that exists to get more exposure for good content. As someone with a programming background, I'm surprised that you are ignoring this. Don't know what to tell you my friend. Best of luck.
Perhaps but I plan to pull metrics in user attrition along the way and we'll see if I really am or conversely I know exactly what I am talking about.
I think more people are starting to realize the ones that the benefit the most from the arrangement are vote sellers and not content creators or real curators. That is the crux of the issue. Why would anyone curate when it's more profitable to delegate to a bot? The problem is this platform needs more manual curators but that doesn't really pay. We have some people holding on to hope curating but their rewards have been supplanted by the bots leaving much less incentive to perform their vital function. One of the cool things about curation is the ones that found the post early would get a nice payout when a whale found it.
When most whales are selling votes or delegating to vote selling services, there is statistically less probability for the curator to expect significant rewards even if they performed their task optimally.
Correlation =/= causation.
That's all true. Yet since that is the case, I would encourage you to utilize the system to your advantage. For example, have you tried starting a curation group and asking for a delegation in SP from anyone? Maybe you could make an "ethical" bid bot that only upvotes whitelisted users and reinvests the profits back into its own SP?
Agreed. That's the problem with the curation system.
Then again, this is all kind of pointless anyway since the distribution of SP is retardedly skewed to one side. Are we just supposed to expect those accounts to sit around and not get involved in a platform where they have so much influence?
I've said it before, but I think the solution is a more careful monitoring of the bid bot system. They're not going anywhere as long as STEEM is worth anything, but I think that some unofficial guidelines regarding post quality would go a long way towards encouraging people to polish their content before buying upvotes.
I don't understand the math beneath all of this, but there is one point I can't see my way to agreeing with: that one person's vote ought to count more than another's - except on the basis of his reputation/engagement/votes received. I observed that it is impossible to publish something and gain any reward, while someone with a certain 2 or three supporters publishes total numpty content and gets immediate rewards. If that wasn't the case, i would never have used a bot. If there were no need for an equalizer, there would be no equalizers.. enter the bid-bots, selling of resteems, the pathetic discord and other circle jerking. I don't know, I may be wrong but I think the only way from here is for bid-bots to reveal their approach so people can use the services they consider to be ethical.
"but there is one point I can't see my way to agreeing with: that one person's vote ought to count more than another's"
Well, Communism is that way, then ---->
I don't think you (mean to be) advocating for neutering the concept of stake, but this is literally the defining feature of Steem. One person's vote will always count more than another's.
I know it as direct democracy. Call it what you like, but I don't believe that an elite ought to determine what a community eventually becomes.
Dope! why am i having so much fun here?
Like i have been away forever.